The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Stop! GMO

At its core, marketing is about the exchange of product benefits for financial benefits by satisfying customer needs and wants within a competitive environment. In the context of our desire for “All-Natural Food,” the need/want theory dictates that consumers do not need all-natural products, they want all-natural products and therefore need all-natural ingredients. Or do they? As a matter of consequence, we have Prop 37 – the GMO labeling debacle that California will vote on this November that will impact a colossal number of prolific brands if passed. If you ask people what they ate last Wednesday they likely will not remember, but ask them about ingredients, and it’s clear we’re becoming concerned about what’s in our food: 85% of people want to know the truth about what’s in their food. Is funding “No on Prop 37” the beginning of a high-profile protracted debate?

On one hand the Prop 37 debate provides us with an honest chance to shed the shackles of unhealthy labeling habits and finally stare the issue in the mouth. With food there’s no better way to be authentic than to be (naturally) honest about what makes up the product. PepsiCo, the world’s second-largest food manufacturer, is funding “No on Prop 37” and has a huge swathe of brands manufactured by its Frito-Lay and Quaker divisions, including “all natural” brands such Mother’s, Sun Chips and Naked Juice, through to its granola bars and yogurts containing significant GMO ingredients, especially corn. Change it, they argue, and the impact on costs would be significant.

On the other hand are we just being too liberal about Prop 37, especially given the assertions that it’s “flawed and poorly drafted?” Big U.S. food corporations play a crucial role in feeding America’s families, employing America’s workers and driving America’s economy. Besides, accusations and bad news is inevitable. It happens to everybody and every organization spanning sports, business, government, entertainment, religion and politics - all of whom seem to have the same issue: handling scandal scandalously. So why is the funding of “No on Prop 37” starting to get attention? It is quite a simple concoction. First you lob something in the public eye such as a big corporation, a CEO, or a major brand. Then add lashings of hubris that makes it a story: power, greed or hypocrisy, and finally cook it slowly over a fire of cover-ups and denial and new information that fans the scandal into media frenzy.

Ideally Big Food CMOs need to be the architects of change, especially as their key customer relationship is with the CEO and she no longer needs to be convinced of the importance of developing relationships with profitable customers and keeping them around. It’s also worth noting that when something starts in California it typically goes national and bad news can be good news to the prepared. The Godfather of public relations, Ivy Ledbetter Lee, once said: "Tell the truth, because sooner or later, the public will find out anyway."

If poorly handled, the Prop 37 debate will generate public attention that could oscillate like a particle accelerator for the shopping cart of major brands revealing their owners’ fragility including Cargill, ConAgra Foods, Kellogg’s, Hershey, Hormel Foods, General Mills, PepsiCo and Pinnacle Foods Group. To protect the integrity and reputation of their basket of brands, CMOs must adhere to certain cardinal rules in the GMO debate:

Akin to the Olympic shooting competition, accuracy of strategy and information clarity is vital, as it requires targeted precision or you’ll be off by a mile. Recent research reveals that if you simplify people’s decision-making process with authenticity, simplified learning and options to weigh in on, they’ll think less about the decision. Fear, however, is often a brand’s first reaction to accusation and culminates in a lack of compassion and/or stubborn refusal of the facts that compromise the brand’s integrity, as with Nestle and its Palm Water. Reporters hate mysteries--it's not the crime, it's the cover-up--stonewall them and they'll dig and excavate deeper. It becomes a point of principle, a crusade to unearth the truth - and get that front page.

Public outcry around a brand’s authenticity can cost its reputation in a single battering. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail; people may be forgiving but the media is not. The momentum of Prop 37 has struck the ­news and is rolling across social media; defensive statements are being rendered useless. Big Food CMOs need to break the frame and plan to play a “full match court” that requires an ecosystem of the right partners to implement best-in-class reputation management, brand marketing, and ingredient communication, something Disney is in hot pursuit with its Mickey Mark endorsement strategy.

Decision-making by committee tends to result in the CMO missing out on fully understanding the gateways to truth their customers use in making brand decisions. Especially when consumers leverage online communities to share information and recommendations to buy: one in three brands are chosen via personal recommendation.

Now is the time to do the right thing. The problem isn't resources, it's about assisting the public’s concerns with a can-do attitude and strong values of trust. Big Food claims it, but evidently does not deliver as they’re fearful and are hiding in strategy bureaucracy. Social media is ubiquitous, people are participating in brands more and the ability to inculcate social media to sway public opinion is ever more crucial. CMOs need to respond boldly; companies talking without really saying anything isn't a recommended solution, and funding “No on Prop 37” will certainly leverage impact trauma on their reputations.

In contrast to their GMO transparency in Europe, Big Food America should not flail around like a loose-fitting part in its home turf, USA, leaving consumers with a nasty taste. Commerce without conscience can no longer be tolerated. Although food producers are applying the letter of the law, they need to pick a lane before the November vote is cast to avoid handling this debacle scandalously. To best serve today's agitated customers, Big Food CMOs’ actions need to be heroic, with principles that make their all natural brands known for being remarkable, authentic, and followed by the laggards of the category for not saying “No on Prop 37,” but rather deploying a hide-nothing, tell-all approach that’s shareable by all so that “it does what it says on the can.”